For businesses large and small, relying on a cloud-based collaboration and productivity suite such as Microsoft Office 365 is becoming the norm. Enhancing productivity in your organisation is vital to get ahead in 2017 - and using Office 365 can help, if it's used right...

"Suspension of users' accounts as a potential sanction is wholly
disproportionate, and is in direct opposition to the objectives outlined in the
Digital
Britain report to increase online participation," said Nicholas Lansman,
secretary general of the Internet Service Providers Association (ISPA).

"ISPA is concerned that the bill will enable the suspension of users'
accounts without a ruling from a judicial authority, and is in defiance of the
EU Telecoms Package that guarantees users' rights to a presumption of innocence
and effective judicial protection."

The
Section
17 proposal by Lord Mandelson to allow any secretary of state to change
copyright law without going through the usual parliamentary processes has also
angered many commentators.

Jim Killock, executive director of the Open Rights Group, an organisation
which
campaigns
on digital issues, suggested that the Section 17 amendment could affect the
ability of UK companies to innovate by making the laws on copyright "highly
changeable".

"Furthermore, if the government were to make companies responsible for
enforcement policies, which would be almost impossible to carry out, many
companies may well be deterred from starting up," he said.

"For the likes of YouTube, Google and Facebook, which own huge amounts of
content, it could also have huge ramifications."

Killock believes that the Section 17 amendment could be a tactical manoeuvre
by Mandelson to divert people's attention from the disconnection proposals.

"The three-strikes proposal is very badly thought out, as is the rest of the
Bill, and the amount of signatures on the online petition underlines this," he
argued.

"It shows that people find the proposal offensive, and the government should
be listening to the feedback the Bill is receiving."

Paddy Gardiner, a media partner at international law firm Eversheds, said
that he is doubtful that the Bill will be passed in its current form.

"The strength of feeling the Bill has generated, and the valid concerns
raised by ISPs about how they would enforce the legislation, suggests it is
likely that the Bill will have to be watered down before it could be passed,"
he explained.

"As many people have pointed out, those who are determined to illegally share
files could easily do it via other accounts, which could lead to innocent people
being unfairly accused of file-sharing and risk being cut-off."

Gardiner added that the concerns over Section 17 seem "fully justified"
because the changes were only "ushered in at the last moment".

"Giving any future secretary of state the ability to change copyright law
without having to go through full judicial processes or debates is something
that does worry me, but I would be surprised if it made it into the final Bill.
"

However the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills hit back, claiming
that that the proposed changes in Section 17 are required to provide the
flexibility to keep pace with fast-moving technologies and "new threats to the
longer term sustainability of our creative industries".

A BIS spokesperson said that the Bill would not create any new criminal
offences and was concerned with "civil infringement of copyright".

“The Bill clearly requires a full public consultation followed by a positive
vote in both Houses of Parliament before the power could be used. So it would be
wrong to suggest this power could be used by Ministers in an arbitrary way,"
the spokesperson continued.

“We know that we also have a responsibility to act fairly and responsibly.
Any new legislation, including secondary legislation, must be proportionate and
comply with both UK and EU law – including the European Convention on Human
Rights.”